first, anyone can edit someone else's contribution, but that doesn't mean the edit is allowed to remain. you have to source things on Wikipedia. i use Wikipedia in my classes all of the time. i look the material over (e.g., this week it's about Copyright and Fair Use for teachers) for accuracy. Stuff that is written there will reference the original source and I can use that instead if i want. however, i am most often impressed enough with the Wikipedia site that i'll just use it. hasn't failed me yet in the last 5 or 6 years i've used it.

the stuff that tends to get sabotaged most often is more political in nature (e.g., a Senate office worker improving the Wikipedia site for his/her boss) or a subject like abortion or the Iraq War.

these new editors aren't going to be writing the information. they'll be editing and ensuring that what gets added is verifiable. they'll do what folks like me and poly are already doing, but more full time. but poly can still watch the Maccentral Wikipedia site and edit all he wants. i can watch the Digital_divide Wikipedia site and do the same. nothing changes in that regard.

When it comes to reliability, Wikipedia already has a poor reputation as it is, and this would only further harm its public image. Paid editing is something that Wikipedia should neither encourage nor condone.

Quote:

but that doesn't mean the edit is allowed to remain

But how long does it remain ? a day maybe weeks or even months before someone catches it ? So where is the accuracy ? Heres case in point

Quote:

Wikipedia’s arbitration committee voted last month to block edits from the Church of Scientology after editors from within the church revised articles to reflect a pro-Scientology viewpoint.

Quote:

hasn't failed me yet in the last 5 or 6 years i've used it.

LOLWell it failed me here in the forum - I was told Wiki is your friend then I posted a Wiki link and was told its all wrong - LOL

AnywayI tend to agree that Wiki would benefit from having paid editors - or in this case Watch Dogs

"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."

But how long does it remain ? a day maybe weeks or even months before someone catches it ? So where is the accuracy ? Heres case in point

My experience is that an invalid edit has a shelf life of less than an hour. Depends on the page. Jill Wagner's page a crude edit might last a half hour, George Bush about five minutes tops.

I have edited several hundred pages and the default is to add them to my "watchlist". If someone edits one of those pages the edit is shown on my watchlist page. If it is "George Bush is an idiot" the edit is quickly reverted by the any of thousands of editors who have the page on their watchlist.

Wikipedia is my first source for information because of this. If I want to check validity of wiki text I just take a look at the "history" of the page (link on the top and bottom of every wiki page.) This history can tell you more about the subject and how controversial the subject is by reading all of the back and forth edit wars that are going on. Every single wiki edit is saved in history. Reading the Scientology edit wars is interesting reading in a "I can't believe people believe this stuff" kind of way.

One might think a subtle edit on an out of the way wiki page would go unnoticed. But it just doesn't happen. I have edited Beaker the Muppet's page so that page is on my watchlist. If someone just changes one tiny thing changing Bunsen Honeydew's name to Buttson Honeydew the change will be noticed by me and several hundred other editors.

When it comes to reliability, Wikipedia already has a poor reputation as it is, and this would only further harm its public image. Paid editing is something that Wikipedia should neither encourage nor condone.

i get that it seems scary that people can edit stuff, but you shouldn't blindly trust any source (e.g., George Bush's gov't environmental websites when he was President). if a page i am watching gets edited then i'll know about it quickly and i can switch it back or not in quick order. and, the stuff about the Church of Scientology sounds like they made the right decision as the Church of Scientology is a bunch of lunatics who go to any measures to put a positive spin on anything related to their church without verification. ban em and the online world is a better place.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.